Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context: it is a full working router, falls back to nothing, and currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly because no candidate is active. It doesn't elaborate on potential differences when a candidate is under test, but the beta nature is implicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is moderately long but each sentence adds value: it explains beta status, current state, usage guidance, and comparison with the stable router. There is minimal redundancy and no fluff, so it is appropriately sized for the information it conveys.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description relies on knowledge of ask_pipeworx, but that is a sibling tool and the pointer 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx' is sufficient for an agent that has access to the sibling. It also provides additional context like the number of tools (5,801) and the explicit mention that it's a full working router, making it complete enough for its intended use as a beta alternative.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description explicitly states that all six parameters (query, q, prompt, text, input, question) are aliases for 'question', and the main parameter description says 'Your question or request in natural language. Accepts query, q, prompt, text, input as aliases.' This fully clarifies the semantics of every parameter, leaving no ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states this is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router, and explains its role as an experimental variant for testing candidate routing. It mentions it is identical to ask_pipeworx and currently matches it exactly, which clarifies its purpose as an alternative router, though it doesn't explicitly say 'answers questions by routing to tools'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and explains that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. This gives a clear condition for selecting this tool over the stable version, though it doesn't mention when NOT to use it (e.g., when stability is preferred).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.